A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Mountain Biking
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

I don't understand - what is this for?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 4th 07, 06:16 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default I don't understand - what is this for?

See http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html.

Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a
demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel
provide any real advantage?

What is the deal with single-speed anyway?

Are there prudish Trek dealers out there who will not carry this bike
because the name, or dealers who would be afraid of offending their
customers? Is the "69er" name meant to appeal to the BMX crowd who buys
products such as the "Snafu Rim Job" tires?

Is the Waterloo, Wisconsin water supply contaminated with a parasite
that causes brain dysfunction?

Who exactly is the target market for this bike?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Ads
  #2  
Old August 4th 07, 06:33 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default I don't understand - what is this for?

In article ,
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" ""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com"
wrote:

See http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html.

Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it
just a demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear
wheel provide any real advantage?


Back in the day, Charlie Cunningham built MTBs with a smaller rear
wheel- IIRC 20" rear and 26" front. Many dirt motorbikes have a smaller
rear wheel. I have no idea why. Maybe Carl Fogel does, he used to ride
trials and the like.

What is the deal with single-speed anyway?


It's self-identification into a subset of a subset.

Are there prudish Trek dealers out there who will not carry this bike
because the name, or dealers who would be afraid of offending their
customers? Is the "69er" name meant to appeal to the BMX crowd who
buys products such as the "Snafu Rim Job" tires?


It's the marketing technique of trying to be hip by naming your product
with a vaguely prurient double entendre. Some marketing flack got a
bonus for that. It was funny back when Scot Nicol did it at Ibis (the
Toe Jam pump mounting peg, the Hand Job brake cable stop) but now it's
just passé. Big manufacturers are always behind the times and their
attempts to be hip are usually embarrassing.

Is the Waterloo, Wisconsin water supply contaminated with a parasite
that causes brain dysfunction?


No, it's an infestation of marketing idiots.

Who exactly is the target market for this bike?


People who want to look like they are riding an engineless motorcycle.
  #3  
Old August 4th 07, 06:44 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
jim beam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,758
Default I don't understand - what is this for?

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
See http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html.

Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a
demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel
provide any real advantage?

What is the deal with single-speed anyway?

Are there prudish Trek dealers out there who will not carry this bike
because the name, or dealers who would be afraid of offending their
customers? Is the "69er" name meant to appeal to the BMX crowd who buys
products such as the "Snafu Rim Job" tires?

Is the Waterloo, Wisconsin water supply contaminated with a parasite
that causes brain dysfunction?

Who exactly is the target market for this bike?


1. larger wheels roll over obstacles better. geometry.
2. off-road motorcycles have had this configuration for decades.

all your other comments are trolling. go ride your bike.
  #4  
Old August 4th 07, 06:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
G.T.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,403
Default I don't understand - what is this for?

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" ""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com"
wrote:

See http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html.

Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it
just a demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear
wheel provide any real advantage?


Back in the day, Charlie Cunningham built MTBs with a smaller rear
wheel- IIRC 20" rear and 26" front. Many dirt motorbikes have a smaller
rear wheel. I have no idea why. Maybe Carl Fogel does, he used to ride
trials and the like.


I don't know about Cunningham but a few builders, including Cannondale,
built bikes with 24" rear wheels and 26" fronts. In fact, I wouldn't
be surprised if someone still is.

The first purpose-built off-road motorcycles started out with 19" front
and 19" rear tires. Over the years that evolved into 18" rears, and 21"
fronts. Although I haven't kept up with off-road motos so they may be
using different sizes now. I know 17", 18" and 19" rear tires and 21"
and 23" front tires were tried at various times over the last 30 years.

Greg

--
Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that:
http://www.ticketmastersucks.org

Dethink to survive - Mclusky
  #5  
Old August 4th 07, 07:05 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
Hank Wirtz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 908
Default I don't understand - what is this for?

On Aug 4, 10:50 am, "G.T." wrote:

I don't know about Cunningham but a few builders, including Cannondale,
built bikes with 24" rear wheels and 26" fronts. In fact, I wouldn't
be surprised if someone still is.


My mom used to have a Shogun Prairie Breaker Pro with a 24" front and
26" rear. She felt like she was going to go over the bars when she
descended on it.

She was not in the least bit heartbroken when it was stolen about 12
years ago. She replaced it with a Trek 990 which she rides to this day.

  #6  
Old August 4th 07, 08:40 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
Ozark Bicycle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,591
Default I don't understand - what is this for?

On Aug 4, 12:16 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com" wrote:
See http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html.

Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a
demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel
provide any real advantage?

What is the deal with single-speed anyway?


It's a fad. It'll pass.....

Are there prudish Trek dealers out there who will not carry this bike
because the name, or dealers who would be afraid of offending their
customers? Is the "69er" name meant to appeal to the BMX crowd who buys
products such as the "Snafu Rim Job" tires?

Is the Waterloo, Wisconsin water supply contaminated with a parasite
that causes brain dysfunction?

Who exactly is the target market for this bike?


People who already have a 'traditional' MTB and need an excuse to buy
another bike.

See: The Rivendell Guide to Marketing Bicycles by G. Petersen

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com



  #7  
Old August 4th 07, 08:49 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,934
Default I don't understand - what is this for?

On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:33:57 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

In article ,
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" ""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com"
wrote:

See http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html.

Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it
just a demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear
wheel provide any real advantage?


Back in the day, Charlie Cunningham built MTBs with a smaller rear
wheel- IIRC 20" rear and 26" front. Many dirt motorbikes have a smaller
rear wheel. I have no idea why. Maybe Carl Fogel does, he used to ride
trials and the like.


Dear Tim,

Sorry, but we fooled you.

Don't feel bad, since 9 out of 10 trials riders will mistakenly insist
that their front tires are bigger.

After all, trials machines use 21-inch front rims and 18-inch rear
rims, so the front tire must be 3 inches taller, right?

Nope.

Look at this 2007 GasGas TXT 300cc, which has the standard 21 x 2.75
front tire and 18 x 4.00 rear ti

http://i16.tinypic.com/4pl4yhk.jpg

You can't tell the front tire from the rear with a yardstick on a
trials machine, particularly if the rider's weight is squashing the
lightly inflated tires.

For practical purposes, the front and rear tires are the same height.
In fact, the height of the tread blocks on a particular model of tire
has more effect on the tire height than whether it's a "21" front or
"18" rear tire.

On the front, the narrow 21-inch rim mounts a skinny 2.75 tire. The
combination is tall enough to roll over obstacles easily, but still
light enough to steer, bounce, and pop up in tricky places. The rim is
strong enough because the leading tire takes less impact, carries less
weight, and has more suspension.

On the rear, the wide 18-inch rim mounts a 4.00 tire, which is so
thick in cross-section that it ends up just as tall and willing to
roll over obstacles as the dainty front tire.

The 4-inch width gives traction for the engine, the huge increase in
cross-section gives more pneumatic suspension at the same 4~6 psi
(think 700x38 versus 700x21), and the massive rim and tire withstand
~400 pounds of rider and machine slamming into waist-high rock ledges.

Since the rear tire steers a gentler curve than the front tire, the
enormous increase in weight doesn't hurt handling.

That's why the original 19-inch front and rear rims were replaced.
They were fine for pavement and okay for fairly smooth off-road
riding, but too heavy and clumsy for the front and not heavy and
strong enough for the rear when riders began bouncing over fallen logs
and big rocks.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
  #8  
Old August 4th 07, 08:56 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default I don't understand - what is this for?

On Aug 4, 1:16 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com" wrote:
See http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html.

Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it just a
demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller rear wheel
provide any real advantage?

What is the deal with single-speed anyway?

Are there prudish Trek dealers out there who will not carry this bike
because the name, or dealers who would be afraid of offending their
customers? Is the "69er" name meant to appeal to the BMX crowd who buys
products such as the "Snafu Rim Job" tires?

Is the Waterloo, Wisconsin water supply contaminated with a parasite
that causes brain dysfunction?

Who exactly is the target market for this bike?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com



Hi there.

The smaller rear wheel gives a slightly lower gear than the bike would
have with a 29 rear wheel.

It looks like a trials bike not a mountain bike,

Market? People who like to ride over obstacles.

Cheers from Peter

  #9  
Old August 4th 07, 10:27 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default I don't understand - what is this for?

In article ,
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:33:57 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

In article ,
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" ""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com"
wrote:

See http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html.

Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it
just a demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller
rear wheel provide any real advantage?


Back in the day, Charlie Cunningham built MTBs with a smaller rear
wheel- IIRC 20" rear and 26" front. Many dirt motorbikes have a
smaller rear wheel. I have no idea why. Maybe Carl Fogel does, he
used to ride trials and the like.


Dear Tim,

Sorry, but we fooled you.

Don't feel bad, since 9 out of 10 trials riders will mistakenly
insist that their front tires are bigger.

After all, trials machines use 21-inch front rims and 18-inch rear
rims, so the front tire must be 3 inches taller, right?

Nope.


Interesting! Never having and anything to do with motorcycles, I'd not
thought much about this. The cycling parallel would be something like
having a 650B X 37 rear and a 700C x 18 front. The overall diameter is
just about the same, but the section width of the tire is very different.
  #10  
Old August 4th 07, 11:14 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,alt.mountain-bike
Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman[_24_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default I don't understand - what is this for?

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:33:57 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

In article ,
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" ""sunsetss0003\"@invalida .com"
wrote:

See http://www2.trekbikes.com/Bikes/2007/mountain/69er.html.

Is the bigger front wheel to better roll over obstacles, or is it
just a demented fashion statement? Conversely, does the smaller
rear wheel provide any real advantage?
Back in the day, Charlie Cunningham built MTBs with a smaller rear
wheel- IIRC 20" rear and 26" front. Many dirt motorbikes have a
smaller rear wheel. I have no idea why. Maybe Carl Fogel does, he
used to ride trials and the like.

Dear Tim,

Sorry, but we fooled you.

Don't feel bad, since 9 out of 10 trials riders will mistakenly
insist that their front tires are bigger.

After all, trials machines use 21-inch front rims and 18-inch rear
rims, so the front tire must be 3 inches taller, right?

Nope.


Interesting! Never having and anything to do with motorcycles, I'd not
thought much about this. The cycling parallel would be something like
having a 650B X 37 rear and a 700C x 18 front. The overall diameter is
just about the same, but the section width of the tire is very different.


Or more appropriately if we are talking "French" tire sizing system,
700A (ISO 642-mm) on the front and 700C (ISO 622-mm) on the rear, both
with an approximate major diameter of 700-mm.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from
http://www.teranews.com

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I don't understand - what is this for? Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman[_5_] General 181 October 22nd 07 04:46 PM
Anyone understand Hungarian? GPW Australia 5 August 4th 06 12:38 AM
i dont understand... cruisecontrol Unicycling 24 November 5th 05 05:38 AM
What you hosers don't seem to understand about LWS x1134x Mountain Biking 67 September 6th 05 03:40 PM
?? I Don't Understand Scammers CycleFit Marketplace 0 January 9th 05 05:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.